Blog

We are all aware of the burden of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Although psoriasis is more common, the arthritic component is a major factor in the morbidity of psoriatic disease. Accordingly, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) is taking steps to expand the focus on PsA.

Last month, the NPF launched the largest realignment and expansion of its PsA program since the organization began its services almost 20 years ago. The NPF’s PsA Project will focus on 4 major areas: (1) Decrease the time to diagnosis. (2) Help those with PsA better manage their disease. (3) Reduce barriers to health care and treatments. (4) Improve understanding of PsA symptoms, disease management, and impact on patient quality of life among health care providers.

Through the PsA Project, the NPF has the following specific goals: (1) Reduce the average time of diagnosis of PsA from 4 years to 1 year. (2) Increase by 50% the number of people with PsA who are receiving the right treatment to 62% total. (3) Reduce from 50% to 30% the number of people who report PsA is a problem in their everyday lives. (4) Double the number of health resources available to people diagnosed with PsA. (5) Increase by 50% the number of National Institutes of Health–funded scientists studying psoriatic disease to 42 scientists to boost care, improve treatment, and find a cure for PsA.

What’s the issue?

Our patients with PsA deserve more resources. The earlier we diagnose this condition the less likely an individual is to suffer pain and possible joint destruction. A project such as the one created by the NPF can only help to raise awareness among both patients and physicians. How will you contribute to expanding awareness of psoriatic arthritis in your community?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

We are all aware of the burden of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Although psoriasis is more common, the arthritic component is a major factor in the morbidity of psoriatic disease. Accordingly, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) is taking steps to expand the focus on PsA.

Last month, the NPF launched the largest realignment and expansion of its PsA program since the organization began its services almost 20 years ago. The NPF’s PsA Project will focus on 4 major areas: (1) Decrease the time to diagnosis. (2) Help those with PsA better manage their disease. (3) Reduce barriers to health care and treatments. (4) Improve understanding of PsA symptoms, disease management, and impact on patient quality of life among health care providers.

Through the PsA Project, the NPF has the following specific goals: (1) Reduce the average time of diagnosis of PsA from 4 years to 1 year. (2) Increase by 50% the number of people with PsA who are receiving the right treatment to 62% total. (3) Reduce from 50% to 30% the number of people who report PsA is a problem in their everyday lives. (4) Double the number of health resources available to people diagnosed with PsA. (5) Increase by 50% the number of National Institutes of Health–funded scientists studying psoriatic disease to 42 scientists to boost care, improve treatment, and find a cure for PsA.

What’s the issue?

Our patients with PsA deserve more resources. The earlier we diagnose this condition the less likely an individual is to suffer pain and possible joint destruction. A project such as the one created by the NPF can only help to raise awareness among both patients and physicians. How will you contribute to expanding awareness of psoriatic arthritis in your community?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

We are all aware of the burden of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Although psoriasis is more common, the arthritic component is a major factor in the morbidity of psoriatic disease. Accordingly, the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) is taking steps to expand the focus on PsA.

Last month, the NPF launched the largest realignment and expansion of its PsA program since the organization began its services almost 20 years ago. The NPF’s PsA Project will focus on 4 major areas: (1) Decrease the time to diagnosis. (2) Help those with PsA better manage their disease. (3) Reduce barriers to health care and treatments. (4) Improve understanding of PsA symptoms, disease management, and impact on patient quality of life among health care providers.

Through the PsA Project, the NPF has the following specific goals: (1) Reduce the average time of diagnosis of PsA from 4 years to 1 year. (2) Increase by 50% the number of people with PsA who are receiving the right treatment to 62% total. (3) Reduce from 50% to 30% the number of people who report PsA is a problem in their everyday lives. (4) Double the number of health resources available to people diagnosed with PsA. (5) Increase by 50% the number of National Institutes of Health–funded scientists studying psoriatic disease to 42 scientists to boost care, improve treatment, and find a cure for PsA.

What’s the issue?

Our patients with PsA deserve more resources. The earlier we diagnose this condition the less likely an individual is to suffer pain and possible joint destruction. A project such as the one created by the NPF can only help to raise awareness among both patients and physicians. How will you contribute to expanding awareness of psoriatic arthritis in your community?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Educating medical students incorporates not only classroom instruction but also bedside teaching. However, in a recent article McGee (JAMA. 2014;311:1971-1972) commented that “teachers spend less than 25% of their teaching time at the bedside.” Therefore, he reconsidered how to routinely incorporate bedside teaching rounds.

McGee recommended that the oral presentation of the patient be brief. He also commented that the subjects best suited for bedside teaching are those who focus on communication, professionalism, and clinical skills. In contrast, complex discussions of pathophysiology and treatment are more appropriate for the classroom. He suggested that the teacher compose and memorize minilectures to use during rounds at the bedside.

In addition, McGee “celebrate[d] the triumphs of bedside examination” by providing 3 personal examples in which patient evaluation at the bedside trumped technology. It is noteworthy but not unexpected that all of the patients had systemic conditions for which the cutaneous findings, in concert with other nondermatologic features, helped to establish the diagnosis. The cases included patients who either had subacute bacterial endocarditis with splinter hemorrhages, reactive arthritis with psoriasiform lesions on the soles of the feet and penis, or hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia with pallor and matlike telangiectases on the fingertips and lower lip.

I fondly remember that during my residency a group of no fewer than 15 to 20 individuals—not only the entire dermatology department but also the medical students on their dermatology clerkship; other clinicians attending the weekly Grand Rounds; and medicine, pediatric, or surgery residents who joined the group—ambulated through the floors of the hospital visiting several patients in their rooms. Bedside teaching gave those who were present the opportunity to observe cutaneous manifestations of systemic diseases. It also allowed for the discovery of clinical observations, such as the linear tongue fissures of herpetic geometric glossitis in immunocompromised patients with oral herpes simplex virus infection.

What’s the issue?

Is teaching at the bedside an activity destined for extinction? Is this time-honored classical method of training, since the days of Sir William Olser at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, becoming an educational artifact of only historic significance?

Unfortunately, there are several barriers to bedside teaching. For example, insufficient time to teach is a major problem. In addition, many diagnoses require ancillary technology such as an electrocardiogram or roentgenogram.

However, there are definite benefits of bedside teaching rounds. This activity can help to calm patients. Teaching at the bedside also provides the mentee with an opportunity to not only see their mentors interact with patients but also to learn physical diagnosis and embrace the concept that patients are unique individuals and not merely abstract diseases or cases. Additionally, bedside teaching provides an opportunity for many patients who derive personal gratification by being able to help in the education of others.

Teaching dermatology often involves the mentor instructing the mentee, either during an encounter with the patient, shortly after they evaluate the patient together, or both.

Dermatology training conferences and society meetings often incorporate patient viewing and discussion. Indeed, bedside teaching and its equivalent when evaluating and treating patients in the office has been and continues to be an integral aspect of dermatology training.

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Educating medical students incorporates not only classroom instruction but also bedside teaching. However, in a recent article McGee (JAMA. 2014;311:1971-1972) commented that “teachers spend less than 25% of their teaching time at the bedside.” Therefore, he reconsidered how to routinely incorporate bedside teaching rounds.

McGee recommended that the oral presentation of the patient be brief. He also commented that the subjects best suited for bedside teaching are those who focus on communication, professionalism, and clinical skills. In contrast, complex discussions of pathophysiology and treatment are more appropriate for the classroom. He suggested that the teacher compose and memorize minilectures to use during rounds at the bedside.

In addition, McGee “celebrate[d] the triumphs of bedside examination” by providing 3 personal examples in which patient evaluation at the bedside trumped technology. It is noteworthy but not unexpected that all of the patients had systemic conditions for which the cutaneous findings, in concert with other nondermatologic features, helped to establish the diagnosis. The cases included patients who either had subacute bacterial endocarditis with splinter hemorrhages, reactive arthritis with psoriasiform lesions on the soles of the feet and penis, or hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia with pallor and matlike telangiectases on the fingertips and lower lip.

I fondly remember that during my residency a group of no fewer than 15 to 20 individuals—not only the entire dermatology department but also the medical students on their dermatology clerkship; other clinicians attending the weekly Grand Rounds; and medicine, pediatric, or surgery residents who joined the group—ambulated through the floors of the hospital visiting several patients in their rooms. Bedside teaching gave those who were present the opportunity to observe cutaneous manifestations of systemic diseases. It also allowed for the discovery of clinical observations, such as the linear tongue fissures of herpetic geometric glossitis in immunocompromised patients with oral herpes simplex virus infection.

What’s the issue?

Is teaching at the bedside an activity destined for extinction? Is this time-honored classical method of training, since the days of Sir William Olser at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, becoming an educational artifact of only historic significance?

Unfortunately, there are several barriers to bedside teaching. For example, insufficient time to teach is a major problem. In addition, many diagnoses require ancillary technology such as an electrocardiogram or roentgenogram.

However, there are definite benefits of bedside teaching rounds. This activity can help to calm patients. Teaching at the bedside also provides the mentee with an opportunity to not only see their mentors interact with patients but also to learn physical diagnosis and embrace the concept that patients are unique individuals and not merely abstract diseases or cases. Additionally, bedside teaching provides an opportunity for many patients who derive personal gratification by being able to help in the education of others.

Teaching dermatology often involves the mentor instructing the mentee, either during an encounter with the patient, shortly after they evaluate the patient together, or both.

Dermatology training conferences and society meetings often incorporate patient viewing and discussion. Indeed, bedside teaching and its equivalent when evaluating and treating patients in the office has been and continues to be an integral aspect of dermatology training.

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Educating medical students incorporates not only classroom instruction but also bedside teaching. However, in a recent article McGee (JAMA. 2014;311:1971-1972) commented that “teachers spend less than 25% of their teaching time at the bedside.” Therefore, he reconsidered how to routinely incorporate bedside teaching rounds.

McGee recommended that the oral presentation of the patient be brief. He also commented that the subjects best suited for bedside teaching are those who focus on communication, professionalism, and clinical skills. In contrast, complex discussions of pathophysiology and treatment are more appropriate for the classroom. He suggested that the teacher compose and memorize minilectures to use during rounds at the bedside.

In addition, McGee “celebrate[d] the triumphs of bedside examination” by providing 3 personal examples in which patient evaluation at the bedside trumped technology. It is noteworthy but not unexpected that all of the patients had systemic conditions for which the cutaneous findings, in concert with other nondermatologic features, helped to establish the diagnosis. The cases included patients who either had subacute bacterial endocarditis with splinter hemorrhages, reactive arthritis with psoriasiform lesions on the soles of the feet and penis, or hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia with pallor and matlike telangiectases on the fingertips and lower lip.

I fondly remember that during my residency a group of no fewer than 15 to 20 individuals—not only the entire dermatology department but also the medical students on their dermatology clerkship; other clinicians attending the weekly Grand Rounds; and medicine, pediatric, or surgery residents who joined the group—ambulated through the floors of the hospital visiting several patients in their rooms. Bedside teaching gave those who were present the opportunity to observe cutaneous manifestations of systemic diseases. It also allowed for the discovery of clinical observations, such as the linear tongue fissures of herpetic geometric glossitis in immunocompromised patients with oral herpes simplex virus infection.

What’s the issue?

Is teaching at the bedside an activity destined for extinction? Is this time-honored classical method of training, since the days of Sir William Olser at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, becoming an educational artifact of only historic significance?

Unfortunately, there are several barriers to bedside teaching. For example, insufficient time to teach is a major problem. In addition, many diagnoses require ancillary technology such as an electrocardiogram or roentgenogram.

However, there are definite benefits of bedside teaching rounds. This activity can help to calm patients. Teaching at the bedside also provides the mentee with an opportunity to not only see their mentors interact with patients but also to learn physical diagnosis and embrace the concept that patients are unique individuals and not merely abstract diseases or cases. Additionally, bedside teaching provides an opportunity for many patients who derive personal gratification by being able to help in the education of others.

Teaching dermatology often involves the mentor instructing the mentee, either during an encounter with the patient, shortly after they evaluate the patient together, or both.

Dermatology training conferences and society meetings often incorporate patient viewing and discussion. Indeed, bedside teaching and its equivalent when evaluating and treating patients in the office has been and continues to be an integral aspect of dermatology training.

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In a JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery online article, Bhattacharyya et al published an article that investigated the antiaging effects of 4 different commercial topical agents. Hairless mice were used as subjects and skin samples were collected from them. The cohorts included nonirradiated mice (control population), mice irradiated with UVB for 8 weeks, mice irradiated with UVB and then exposed to a topical cosmeceutical applied for 5 weeks, and mice who were exposed to UVB but not exposed to cosmeceuticals. The 4 cosmeceuticals were as follows: antioxidant mixture consisting of ferulic acid (CE Ferulic with L-ascorbic acid, alpha-tocopherol, and ferulic acid; SkinCeuticals); peptide cream (Replenix Peptide Cream with acetyl hexapeptide-8, acetyl dipeptide-1, palmitoyl tripeptide-3, and Macrocystis pyrifera extract; Topix Pharmaceuticals, Inc); estrogen cream (Estriol-M 0.3% facial serum; Madison Pharmacy Associates, Inc.); and retinoic acid (Renova with tretinoin 0.05%; Ortho Dermatological).

The exposure to UVB (80% UVB radiation in the range of 280–340 nm) was shown to induce wrinkle formation after 13 weeks. Epidermal thickness, sebocyte counts, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen were measured as outcomes. The authors concluded that the peptide cream, antioxidant mixture, estrogen cream, and retinoic acid cosmeceuticals attenuated this radiation-induced wrinkle formation. There was a statistical trend of reversal of irradiation-induced epidermal thickness with the peptide cream and antioxidant mixture. The retinoic acid augmented epidermal width and sebocyte counts, and the estrogen cream was effective in restoring surface features but enhanced thickness of epidermis in irradiated specimens. All of the groups had higher proliferating cell nuclear antigen scores, except the peptide group, which brought it down to control level.

What’s the issue?

Photoaging is a common cosmetic concern among many patients who seek to find a topical treatment. The peptide cream, antioxidant mixture, and estrogen cream reduced wrinkle formation in 5 weeks. The estrogen cream and retinoic acid treatment actually augmented the epidermal thickness to a level higher than after irradiation. The authors concluded that of the 4 cosmeceuticals tested, the peptide cream and the antioxidant mixture were the most effective overall in reversing photoaging effects, while the retinoic acid was deemed least effective. This study provides a good in vivo look at the histologic effects of common cosmeceutical preparations. With this evidence, what would you prescribe for photoaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In a JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery online article, Bhattacharyya et al published an article that investigated the antiaging effects of 4 different commercial topical agents. Hairless mice were used as subjects and skin samples were collected from them. The cohorts included nonirradiated mice (control population), mice irradiated with UVB for 8 weeks, mice irradiated with UVB and then exposed to a topical cosmeceutical applied for 5 weeks, and mice who were exposed to UVB but not exposed to cosmeceuticals. The 4 cosmeceuticals were as follows: antioxidant mixture consisting of ferulic acid (CE Ferulic with L-ascorbic acid, alpha-tocopherol, and ferulic acid; SkinCeuticals); peptide cream (Replenix Peptide Cream with acetyl hexapeptide-8, acetyl dipeptide-1, palmitoyl tripeptide-3, and Macrocystis pyrifera extract; Topix Pharmaceuticals, Inc); estrogen cream (Estriol-M 0.3% facial serum; Madison Pharmacy Associates, Inc.); and retinoic acid (Renova with tretinoin 0.05%; Ortho Dermatological).

The exposure to UVB (80% UVB radiation in the range of 280–340 nm) was shown to induce wrinkle formation after 13 weeks. Epidermal thickness, sebocyte counts, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen were measured as outcomes. The authors concluded that the peptide cream, antioxidant mixture, estrogen cream, and retinoic acid cosmeceuticals attenuated this radiation-induced wrinkle formation. There was a statistical trend of reversal of irradiation-induced epidermal thickness with the peptide cream and antioxidant mixture. The retinoic acid augmented epidermal width and sebocyte counts, and the estrogen cream was effective in restoring surface features but enhanced thickness of epidermis in irradiated specimens. All of the groups had higher proliferating cell nuclear antigen scores, except the peptide group, which brought it down to control level.

What’s the issue?

Photoaging is a common cosmetic concern among many patients who seek to find a topical treatment. The peptide cream, antioxidant mixture, and estrogen cream reduced wrinkle formation in 5 weeks. The estrogen cream and retinoic acid treatment actually augmented the epidermal thickness to a level higher than after irradiation. The authors concluded that of the 4 cosmeceuticals tested, the peptide cream and the antioxidant mixture were the most effective overall in reversing photoaging effects, while the retinoic acid was deemed least effective. This study provides a good in vivo look at the histologic effects of common cosmeceutical preparations. With this evidence, what would you prescribe for photoaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

In a JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery online article, Bhattacharyya et al published an article that investigated the antiaging effects of 4 different commercial topical agents. Hairless mice were used as subjects and skin samples were collected from them. The cohorts included nonirradiated mice (control population), mice irradiated with UVB for 8 weeks, mice irradiated with UVB and then exposed to a topical cosmeceutical applied for 5 weeks, and mice who were exposed to UVB but not exposed to cosmeceuticals. The 4 cosmeceuticals were as follows: antioxidant mixture consisting of ferulic acid (CE Ferulic with L-ascorbic acid, alpha-tocopherol, and ferulic acid; SkinCeuticals); peptide cream (Replenix Peptide Cream with acetyl hexapeptide-8, acetyl dipeptide-1, palmitoyl tripeptide-3, and Macrocystis pyrifera extract; Topix Pharmaceuticals, Inc); estrogen cream (Estriol-M 0.3% facial serum; Madison Pharmacy Associates, Inc.); and retinoic acid (Renova with tretinoin 0.05%; Ortho Dermatological).

The exposure to UVB (80% UVB radiation in the range of 280–340 nm) was shown to induce wrinkle formation after 13 weeks. Epidermal thickness, sebocyte counts, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen were measured as outcomes. The authors concluded that the peptide cream, antioxidant mixture, estrogen cream, and retinoic acid cosmeceuticals attenuated this radiation-induced wrinkle formation. There was a statistical trend of reversal of irradiation-induced epidermal thickness with the peptide cream and antioxidant mixture. The retinoic acid augmented epidermal width and sebocyte counts, and the estrogen cream was effective in restoring surface features but enhanced thickness of epidermis in irradiated specimens. All of the groups had higher proliferating cell nuclear antigen scores, except the peptide group, which brought it down to control level.

What’s the issue?

Photoaging is a common cosmetic concern among many patients who seek to find a topical treatment. The peptide cream, antioxidant mixture, and estrogen cream reduced wrinkle formation in 5 weeks. The estrogen cream and retinoic acid treatment actually augmented the epidermal thickness to a level higher than after irradiation. The authors concluded that of the 4 cosmeceuticals tested, the peptide cream and the antioxidant mixture were the most effective overall in reversing photoaging effects, while the retinoic acid was deemed least effective. This study provides a good in vivo look at the histologic effects of common cosmeceutical preparations. With this evidence, what would you prescribe for photoaging?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

De Pasquale and colleagues (Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37:587-591) published a review of the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers for tear trough deformity. In this study, 22 patients were injected with HA filler and evaluated 7 days after injection; then after 1, 6, and 12 months; and then yearly up to 3 years (20/22 patients). High-frequency ultrasonography using a 15-MHz scanner with an axial resolution of 15 mm was utilized to evaluate the presence of filler at each follow-up visit. Injection technique with 3 punctures and filler deposit was used.

The amount of filler used in each area ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 mL (mean [standard deviation], 0.267±0.128 mL). At 1-week follow-up, 21 patients required another injection in the same area or adjacent to the injected area to improve the appearance. The filler was always identifiable by ultrasonography, and it was possible to measure the amount of filler in the tissue. Filler measurement during the first follow-up scan ranged from 4.31 to 1.81 mm (mean [standard deviation], 3.06±0.70 mm), whereas the last follow-up scan showed values ranging from 1 to 2.3 mm (mean [standard deviation], 1.40±0.29 mm).

What's the issue?

The study showed several interesting findings. The fact that ultrasonography can reliably show HA filler agent in this area is very interesting. Because the tear trough is one of the more sensitive areas we inject with HA, it may be useful to utilize this technology for follow-up patients. The ultrasound also showed that some HA filler was present for as long as 3 years, which confirms the clinical observation that patients require less agent at a greater duration in this area. The authors also stressed that the technique of 3 to 5 injections perpendicular to the skin below the orbital rim created filler deposits deep in the orbicularis oculi muscle and was safe and effective. Does this technique differ from the one you use? Do you use a different technique for different patients? Have you seen different results based on your technique?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

De Pasquale and colleagues (Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37:587-591) published a review of the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers for tear trough deformity. In this study, 22 patients were injected with HA filler and evaluated 7 days after injection; then after 1, 6, and 12 months; and then yearly up to 3 years (20/22 patients). High-frequency ultrasonography using a 15-MHz scanner with an axial resolution of 15 mm was utilized to evaluate the presence of filler at each follow-up visit. Injection technique with 3 punctures and filler deposit was used.

The amount of filler used in each area ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 mL (mean [standard deviation], 0.267±0.128 mL). At 1-week follow-up, 21 patients required another injection in the same area or adjacent to the injected area to improve the appearance. The filler was always identifiable by ultrasonography, and it was possible to measure the amount of filler in the tissue. Filler measurement during the first follow-up scan ranged from 4.31 to 1.81 mm (mean [standard deviation], 3.06±0.70 mm), whereas the last follow-up scan showed values ranging from 1 to 2.3 mm (mean [standard deviation], 1.40±0.29 mm).

What's the issue?

The study showed several interesting findings. The fact that ultrasonography can reliably show HA filler agent in this area is very interesting. Because the tear trough is one of the more sensitive areas we inject with HA, it may be useful to utilize this technology for follow-up patients. The ultrasound also showed that some HA filler was present for as long as 3 years, which confirms the clinical observation that patients require less agent at a greater duration in this area. The authors also stressed that the technique of 3 to 5 injections perpendicular to the skin below the orbital rim created filler deposits deep in the orbicularis oculi muscle and was safe and effective. Does this technique differ from the one you use? Do you use a different technique for different patients? Have you seen different results based on your technique?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

De Pasquale and colleagues (Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37:587-591) published a review of the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers for tear trough deformity. In this study, 22 patients were injected with HA filler and evaluated 7 days after injection; then after 1, 6, and 12 months; and then yearly up to 3 years (20/22 patients). High-frequency ultrasonography using a 15-MHz scanner with an axial resolution of 15 mm was utilized to evaluate the presence of filler at each follow-up visit. Injection technique with 3 punctures and filler deposit was used.

The amount of filler used in each area ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 mL (mean [standard deviation], 0.267±0.128 mL). At 1-week follow-up, 21 patients required another injection in the same area or adjacent to the injected area to improve the appearance. The filler was always identifiable by ultrasonography, and it was possible to measure the amount of filler in the tissue. Filler measurement during the first follow-up scan ranged from 4.31 to 1.81 mm (mean [standard deviation], 3.06±0.70 mm), whereas the last follow-up scan showed values ranging from 1 to 2.3 mm (mean [standard deviation], 1.40±0.29 mm).

What's the issue?

The study showed several interesting findings. The fact that ultrasonography can reliably show HA filler agent in this area is very interesting. Because the tear trough is one of the more sensitive areas we inject with HA, it may be useful to utilize this technology for follow-up patients. The ultrasound also showed that some HA filler was present for as long as 3 years, which confirms the clinical observation that patients require less agent at a greater duration in this area. The authors also stressed that the technique of 3 to 5 injections perpendicular to the skin below the orbital rim created filler deposits deep in the orbicularis oculi muscle and was safe and effective. Does this technique differ from the one you use? Do you use a different technique for different patients? Have you seen different results based on your technique?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

As dermatologists we are all aware of the serious nature of psoriasis and its impact on the quality of life of patients. In the last decade we have more clearly recognized the comorbidities of the condition, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease and malignancy. However, there are many people, within and outside the medical community, who are not aware of the potentially serious nature of this disease.

Hopefully the tide is turning. According to News Medical, at the recent 67th World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization member states adopted a resolution on psoriasis, recognizing it as “a chronic, non-communicable, painful, disfiguring, and disabling disease for which there is no cure.” This resolution also acknowledged the psychosocial burden of the disease as well as the fact that many people with psoriasis suffer due to lack of awareness and access to sufficient treatment.

On this occasion, Wolfram Sterry, MD, president of the International League of Dermatological Societies, commented with the following:

“As a dermatologist I have seen first-hand how deeply psoriasis affects people in their daily lives, as have the many members of our worldwide organization. Together with the psoriasis patient associations, we have been able to educate policy makers on the impact this disease has and what can be done to ease its burden. This resolution gives us a platform from which we can engage even further with policy makers to help improve access to the treatment and care that people with psoriasis need and deserve.”

For many years, dermatologic societies and the National Psoriasis Foundation have been active in raising awareness about the impact of psoriasis, but it is gratifying to see a more global body take steps to increase public awareness of the disease.

What’s the issue?

Awareness of psoriasis is not at the level where it should be, which is especially true among the patients with the disease who often do not know where to find care and are unaware of the treatment options available in 2014. This acknowledgment by the World Health Organization is a nice step in the right direction. What will you do to increase awareness in your community?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

As dermatologists we are all aware of the serious nature of psoriasis and its impact on the quality of life of patients. In the last decade we have more clearly recognized the comorbidities of the condition, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease and malignancy. However, there are many people, within and outside the medical community, who are not aware of the potentially serious nature of this disease.

Hopefully the tide is turning. According to News Medical, at the recent 67th World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization member states adopted a resolution on psoriasis, recognizing it as “a chronic, non-communicable, painful, disfiguring, and disabling disease for which there is no cure.” This resolution also acknowledged the psychosocial burden of the disease as well as the fact that many people with psoriasis suffer due to lack of awareness and access to sufficient treatment.

On this occasion, Wolfram Sterry, MD, president of the International League of Dermatological Societies, commented with the following:

“As a dermatologist I have seen first-hand how deeply psoriasis affects people in their daily lives, as have the many members of our worldwide organization. Together with the psoriasis patient associations, we have been able to educate policy makers on the impact this disease has and what can be done to ease its burden. This resolution gives us a platform from which we can engage even further with policy makers to help improve access to the treatment and care that people with psoriasis need and deserve.”

For many years, dermatologic societies and the National Psoriasis Foundation have been active in raising awareness about the impact of psoriasis, but it is gratifying to see a more global body take steps to increase public awareness of the disease.

What’s the issue?

Awareness of psoriasis is not at the level where it should be, which is especially true among the patients with the disease who often do not know where to find care and are unaware of the treatment options available in 2014. This acknowledgment by the World Health Organization is a nice step in the right direction. What will you do to increase awareness in your community?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

As dermatologists we are all aware of the serious nature of psoriasis and its impact on the quality of life of patients. In the last decade we have more clearly recognized the comorbidities of the condition, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease and malignancy. However, there are many people, within and outside the medical community, who are not aware of the potentially serious nature of this disease.

Hopefully the tide is turning. According to News Medical, at the recent 67th World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization member states adopted a resolution on psoriasis, recognizing it as “a chronic, non-communicable, painful, disfiguring, and disabling disease for which there is no cure.” This resolution also acknowledged the psychosocial burden of the disease as well as the fact that many people with psoriasis suffer due to lack of awareness and access to sufficient treatment.

On this occasion, Wolfram Sterry, MD, president of the International League of Dermatological Societies, commented with the following:

“As a dermatologist I have seen first-hand how deeply psoriasis affects people in their daily lives, as have the many members of our worldwide organization. Together with the psoriasis patient associations, we have been able to educate policy makers on the impact this disease has and what can be done to ease its burden. This resolution gives us a platform from which we can engage even further with policy makers to help improve access to the treatment and care that people with psoriasis need and deserve.”

For many years, dermatologic societies and the National Psoriasis Foundation have been active in raising awareness about the impact of psoriasis, but it is gratifying to see a more global body take steps to increase public awareness of the disease.

What’s the issue?

Awareness of psoriasis is not at the level where it should be, which is especially true among the patients with the disease who often do not know where to find care and are unaware of the treatment options available in 2014. This acknowledgment by the World Health Organization is a nice step in the right direction. What will you do to increase awareness in your community?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

A diagnosis of a chronic and/or serious medical condition can be a traumatic experience. Patients may experience not only intrusive thoughts but also avoidance behaviors. The affected individuals can express these trauma-associated symptoms as depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbance.

Milbury et al (J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:663-670) included 277 patients who had been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma in a study to evaluate if writing about their deepest thoughts and feelings regarding their cancer (expressive writing) offered a quality-of-life benefit compared to writing about neutral topics (neutral writing). They found that expressive writing not only reduced the patients’ cancer-related symptoms but also improved their physical functioning.

What’s the issue?

Many of the conditions that affect dermatology patients are chronic, serious, or both. For example, psoriasis is a chronic skin condition with the potential for serious associated rheumatologic or metabolic sequelae. In addition, skin malignancies (eg, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma) and cutaneous lymphoma (eg, mycosis fungoides) are conditions that require chronic surveillance and possibly may have serious consequences.

Expressive writing for dermatology patients might result in remarkable improvement in emotional and physical health. Perhaps dermatologists should recommend this intervention for their patients.

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

A diagnosis of a chronic and/or serious medical condition can be a traumatic experience. Patients may experience not only intrusive thoughts but also avoidance behaviors. The affected individuals can express these trauma-associated symptoms as depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbance.

Milbury et al (J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:663-670) included 277 patients who had been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma in a study to evaluate if writing about their deepest thoughts and feelings regarding their cancer (expressive writing) offered a quality-of-life benefit compared to writing about neutral topics (neutral writing). They found that expressive writing not only reduced the patients’ cancer-related symptoms but also improved their physical functioning.

What’s the issue?

Many of the conditions that affect dermatology patients are chronic, serious, or both. For example, psoriasis is a chronic skin condition with the potential for serious associated rheumatologic or metabolic sequelae. In addition, skin malignancies (eg, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma) and cutaneous lymphoma (eg, mycosis fungoides) are conditions that require chronic surveillance and possibly may have serious consequences.

Expressive writing for dermatology patients might result in remarkable improvement in emotional and physical health. Perhaps dermatologists should recommend this intervention for their patients.

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

A diagnosis of a chronic and/or serious medical condition can be a traumatic experience. Patients may experience not only intrusive thoughts but also avoidance behaviors. The affected individuals can express these trauma-associated symptoms as depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbance.

Milbury et al (J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:663-670) included 277 patients who had been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma in a study to evaluate if writing about their deepest thoughts and feelings regarding their cancer (expressive writing) offered a quality-of-life benefit compared to writing about neutral topics (neutral writing). They found that expressive writing not only reduced the patients’ cancer-related symptoms but also improved their physical functioning.

What’s the issue?

Many of the conditions that affect dermatology patients are chronic, serious, or both. For example, psoriasis is a chronic skin condition with the potential for serious associated rheumatologic or metabolic sequelae. In addition, skin malignancies (eg, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma) and cutaneous lymphoma (eg, mycosis fungoides) are conditions that require chronic surveillance and possibly may have serious consequences.

Expressive writing for dermatology patients might result in remarkable improvement in emotional and physical health. Perhaps dermatologists should recommend this intervention for their patients.

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

The concept of unmet needs in psoriasis is not new. We are aware that both patients and physicians feel there are gaps in the management and treatment of the condition. Lebwohl et al (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:871-881) performed an extensive survey to further the understanding of the unmet needs of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients. The survey was a large, multinational, population-based analysis of psoriasis and/or PsA patients in North America and Europe. In terms of methodology, surveyed individuals were selected by list-assisted random digit dialing and did not have to currently be under the care of a health care provider, a patient organization member, or receiving treatment. Overall, the survey screened 139,948 households, and 3426 patients completed the survey.

The population prevalence of psoriasis and/or PsA ranged from 1.4% in Spain to 3.3% in Canada, with an overall prevalence of 1.9%. Seventy-nine percent of patients had psoriasis alone, while 21% experienced PsA with or without psoriasis.

When rating disease severity at its worst, 27% of those with psoriasis and 53% with psoriasis and/or PsA rated it as severe. Itching (43%), scales (23%), and flaking (20%) were considered the most bothersome signs or symptoms by psoriasis patients, and 45% of them had not seen a physician in 1 year. More than 80% of psoriasis patients with at least 4 palms body surface area and 59% of the PsA cohort were receiving no treatment or only topical treatment. Of patients who had received oral or biologic therapy, 57% and 45%, respectively, discontinued therapy, most often for safety or tolerability reasons and a lack or loss of efficacy.

The authors concluded that the following identified unmet needs warrant additional attention and action: improved severity assessment, PsA screening, patient awareness, and treatment options. They noted that their findings suggest there is a high rate of undertreatment of both psoriasis and PsA and a mismatch between patient and physician assessment of severity.

What’s the issue?

Again we are faced with data suggesting that our patients perceive deficiencies in their psoriasis care. Therefore, it is important that we continue to educate our patients and ourselves so that we can narrow these gaps. How will you react to these findings in your management of psoriasis?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

The concept of unmet needs in psoriasis is not new. We are aware that both patients and physicians feel there are gaps in the management and treatment of the condition. Lebwohl et al (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:871-881) performed an extensive survey to further the understanding of the unmet needs of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients. The survey was a large, multinational, population-based analysis of psoriasis and/or PsA patients in North America and Europe. In terms of methodology, surveyed individuals were selected by list-assisted random digit dialing and did not have to currently be under the care of a health care provider, a patient organization member, or receiving treatment. Overall, the survey screened 139,948 households, and 3426 patients completed the survey.

The population prevalence of psoriasis and/or PsA ranged from 1.4% in Spain to 3.3% in Canada, with an overall prevalence of 1.9%. Seventy-nine percent of patients had psoriasis alone, while 21% experienced PsA with or without psoriasis.

When rating disease severity at its worst, 27% of those with psoriasis and 53% with psoriasis and/or PsA rated it as severe. Itching (43%), scales (23%), and flaking (20%) were considered the most bothersome signs or symptoms by psoriasis patients, and 45% of them had not seen a physician in 1 year. More than 80% of psoriasis patients with at least 4 palms body surface area and 59% of the PsA cohort were receiving no treatment or only topical treatment. Of patients who had received oral or biologic therapy, 57% and 45%, respectively, discontinued therapy, most often for safety or tolerability reasons and a lack or loss of efficacy.

The authors concluded that the following identified unmet needs warrant additional attention and action: improved severity assessment, PsA screening, patient awareness, and treatment options. They noted that their findings suggest there is a high rate of undertreatment of both psoriasis and PsA and a mismatch between patient and physician assessment of severity.

What’s the issue?

Again we are faced with data suggesting that our patients perceive deficiencies in their psoriasis care. Therefore, it is important that we continue to educate our patients and ourselves so that we can narrow these gaps. How will you react to these findings in your management of psoriasis?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

The concept of unmet needs in psoriasis is not new. We are aware that both patients and physicians feel there are gaps in the management and treatment of the condition. Lebwohl et al (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:871-881) performed an extensive survey to further the understanding of the unmet needs of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients. The survey was a large, multinational, population-based analysis of psoriasis and/or PsA patients in North America and Europe. In terms of methodology, surveyed individuals were selected by list-assisted random digit dialing and did not have to currently be under the care of a health care provider, a patient organization member, or receiving treatment. Overall, the survey screened 139,948 households, and 3426 patients completed the survey.

The population prevalence of psoriasis and/or PsA ranged from 1.4% in Spain to 3.3% in Canada, with an overall prevalence of 1.9%. Seventy-nine percent of patients had psoriasis alone, while 21% experienced PsA with or without psoriasis.

When rating disease severity at its worst, 27% of those with psoriasis and 53% with psoriasis and/or PsA rated it as severe. Itching (43%), scales (23%), and flaking (20%) were considered the most bothersome signs or symptoms by psoriasis patients, and 45% of them had not seen a physician in 1 year. More than 80% of psoriasis patients with at least 4 palms body surface area and 59% of the PsA cohort were receiving no treatment or only topical treatment. Of patients who had received oral or biologic therapy, 57% and 45%, respectively, discontinued therapy, most often for safety or tolerability reasons and a lack or loss of efficacy.

The authors concluded that the following identified unmet needs warrant additional attention and action: improved severity assessment, PsA screening, patient awareness, and treatment options. They noted that their findings suggest there is a high rate of undertreatment of both psoriasis and PsA and a mismatch between patient and physician assessment of severity.

What’s the issue?

Again we are faced with data suggesting that our patients perceive deficiencies in their psoriasis care. Therefore, it is important that we continue to educate our patients and ourselves so that we can narrow these gaps. How will you react to these findings in your management of psoriasis?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Another year, another meeting for the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) over, and this one certainly took the AAD to new heights! The “mile-high city” graciously welcomed us as dermatologists from all over the world convened in Denver. Luckily, the big blue bear (pictured here) never did break through the convention center wall, and a bit of chilly weather notwithstanding, the meeting was a great success!

Photograph courtesy of Benjamin Lin, MD, Los Angeles, California.

As always, with so many interesting things going on and so many dermatology luminaries speaking at the same time, it can be quite difficult to navigate the conference and decide which lectures to attend. If there is a specific research topic that sparks your interest, no doubt there was a captivating and focused talk for you to attend. For example, those interested in the use of biologics in dermatology aside from psoriasis may have attended the excellent, standing room only forum “Biologic Therapy in Dermatology Beyond Psoriasis.” But for those who just wanted a sampling of hot topics and board-relevant facts, there certainly was already a very full schedule.

If your program allows you to arrive a day early for the conference, the “Practice Management Symposium for Residents” is highly suggested. Although it does seem geared toward more senior residents with topics such as contract evaluation, how to set up an office, and coding, this information takes some time (and perhaps repetition) to settle in. Because it is free for residents, why not attend more than once during your residency?

“Resident Jeopardy” always is a popular event. Whether or not you have a horse in the race, it is exciting to watch the team try to answer the minutiae of the minutiae, and it is always a great and fun learning experience. Along a similar strain, “Boards Blitz” is another highly attended session for residents. Bridging basic dermatology to dermatopathology to an intense dermatologic surgery session, this symposium paints a broad brushstroke of what is important for dermatology residents to know.

If you could get in, “High Yield ‘Power Hour’ for Residents,” which actually spanned more than an hour, was a great experience. Rapid-fire, boards-style questions: what dermatology resident does not love that? But maybe you were one of those people who could not get in because the room was at capacity; you could have gone next door to watch your peers present their findings at the “Residents and Fellows Symposium,” spanning a broad range of both clinical and basic science research.

If dermatopathology is your cup of tea, there were many forums, symposia, and lectures right up your alley. Either way, a very good session for all dermatology residents is the “Basic Self- assessment of Dermatopathology.” Over 2 hours you get to go through 60 slides (2 minutes each) and pick your preferred answer in a multiple-choice format. The discussion session the next morning could be either reassuring or maybe a bit of a wake-up call! For those dermatopathology pros, there is the “Advanced Self-assessment of Dermatopathology” too. Of course, if you are ready for that course, you probably were also excited for the dermatopathology bowl, conducted yearly at the Dermpath Diagnostics booth on the exhibition floor. Compete head-to-head against other programs around the country and make the diagnosis!

Every year, the plenary session is a signature series of lectures. It is a real privilege to hear from the leadership of the AAD about the most pressing issues in our specialty along with a spotlight guest lecture.

This year’s meeting also saw a change in the late-breaking research symposium with a new name, “The Latest in Dermatology Research,” now with a 2-day format. Who does not want to be on the cutting edge of dermatology?

Lastly, if you are not too comfortable with that little polarized light doohickey in your pocket, numerous sessions focusing on dermoscopy were available from “Basic Dermoscopy” to “Advanced Dermoscopy” and specialized sessions on topics such as “Hair and Scalp Dermoscopy.”

Of course, the AAD would not be the AAD without some fun, so make sure to hit up the resident’s reception to see old friends, fellow interns, people from the interview trail, and “that” guy or girl who everyone remembers (for good or bad). If you signed up early enough, perhaps you got one of the complimentary resident spots at the Women’s Dermatologic Society luncheon, which is a great event with interesting talks and great company; you do not have to be a woman to go!

I hope you enjoyed the AAD this year; are you excited yet for San Francisco next year?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Another year, another meeting for the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) over, and this one certainly took the AAD to new heights! The “mile-high city” graciously welcomed us as dermatologists from all over the world convened in Denver. Luckily, the big blue bear (pictured here) never did break through the convention center wall, and a bit of chilly weather notwithstanding, the meeting was a great success!

Photograph courtesy of Benjamin Lin, MD, Los Angeles, California.

As always, with so many interesting things going on and so many dermatology luminaries speaking at the same time, it can be quite difficult to navigate the conference and decide which lectures to attend. If there is a specific research topic that sparks your interest, no doubt there was a captivating and focused talk for you to attend. For example, those interested in the use of biologics in dermatology aside from psoriasis may have attended the excellent, standing room only forum “Biologic Therapy in Dermatology Beyond Psoriasis.” But for those who just wanted a sampling of hot topics and board-relevant facts, there certainly was already a very full schedule.

If your program allows you to arrive a day early for the conference, the “Practice Management Symposium for Residents” is highly suggested. Although it does seem geared toward more senior residents with topics such as contract evaluation, how to set up an office, and coding, this information takes some time (and perhaps repetition) to settle in. Because it is free for residents, why not attend more than once during your residency?

“Resident Jeopardy” always is a popular event. Whether or not you have a horse in the race, it is exciting to watch the team try to answer the minutiae of the minutiae, and it is always a great and fun learning experience. Along a similar strain, “Boards Blitz” is another highly attended session for residents. Bridging basic dermatology to dermatopathology to an intense dermatologic surgery session, this symposium paints a broad brushstroke of what is important for dermatology residents to know.

If you could get in, “High Yield ‘Power Hour’ for Residents,” which actually spanned more than an hour, was a great experience. Rapid-fire, boards-style questions: what dermatology resident does not love that? But maybe you were one of those people who could not get in because the room was at capacity; you could have gone next door to watch your peers present their findings at the “Residents and Fellows Symposium,” spanning a broad range of both clinical and basic science research.

If dermatopathology is your cup of tea, there were many forums, symposia, and lectures right up your alley. Either way, a very good session for all dermatology residents is the “Basic Self- assessment of Dermatopathology.” Over 2 hours you get to go through 60 slides (2 minutes each) and pick your preferred answer in a multiple-choice format. The discussion session the next morning could be either reassuring or maybe a bit of a wake-up call! For those dermatopathology pros, there is the “Advanced Self-assessment of Dermatopathology” too. Of course, if you are ready for that course, you probably were also excited for the dermatopathology bowl, conducted yearly at the Dermpath Diagnostics booth on the exhibition floor. Compete head-to-head against other programs around the country and make the diagnosis!

Every year, the plenary session is a signature series of lectures. It is a real privilege to hear from the leadership of the AAD about the most pressing issues in our specialty along with a spotlight guest lecture.

This year’s meeting also saw a change in the late-breaking research symposium with a new name, “The Latest in Dermatology Research,” now with a 2-day format. Who does not want to be on the cutting edge of dermatology?

Lastly, if you are not too comfortable with that little polarized light doohickey in your pocket, numerous sessions focusing on dermoscopy were available from “Basic Dermoscopy” to “Advanced Dermoscopy” and specialized sessions on topics such as “Hair and Scalp Dermoscopy.”

Of course, the AAD would not be the AAD without some fun, so make sure to hit up the resident’s reception to see old friends, fellow interns, people from the interview trail, and “that” guy or girl who everyone remembers (for good or bad). If you signed up early enough, perhaps you got one of the complimentary resident spots at the Women’s Dermatologic Society luncheon, which is a great event with interesting talks and great company; you do not have to be a woman to go!

I hope you enjoyed the AAD this year; are you excited yet for San Francisco next year?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

Another year, another meeting for the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) over, and this one certainly took the AAD to new heights! The “mile-high city” graciously welcomed us as dermatologists from all over the world convened in Denver. Luckily, the big blue bear (pictured here) never did break through the convention center wall, and a bit of chilly weather notwithstanding, the meeting was a great success!

Photograph courtesy of Benjamin Lin, MD, Los Angeles, California.

As always, with so many interesting things going on and so many dermatology luminaries speaking at the same time, it can be quite difficult to navigate the conference and decide which lectures to attend. If there is a specific research topic that sparks your interest, no doubt there was a captivating and focused talk for you to attend. For example, those interested in the use of biologics in dermatology aside from psoriasis may have attended the excellent, standing room only forum “Biologic Therapy in Dermatology Beyond Psoriasis.” But for those who just wanted a sampling of hot topics and board-relevant facts, there certainly was already a very full schedule.

If your program allows you to arrive a day early for the conference, the “Practice Management Symposium for Residents” is highly suggested. Although it does seem geared toward more senior residents with topics such as contract evaluation, how to set up an office, and coding, this information takes some time (and perhaps repetition) to settle in. Because it is free for residents, why not attend more than once during your residency?

“Resident Jeopardy” always is a popular event. Whether or not you have a horse in the race, it is exciting to watch the team try to answer the minutiae of the minutiae, and it is always a great and fun learning experience. Along a similar strain, “Boards Blitz” is another highly attended session for residents. Bridging basic dermatology to dermatopathology to an intense dermatologic surgery session, this symposium paints a broad brushstroke of what is important for dermatology residents to know.

If you could get in, “High Yield ‘Power Hour’ for Residents,” which actually spanned more than an hour, was a great experience. Rapid-fire, boards-style questions: what dermatology resident does not love that? But maybe you were one of those people who could not get in because the room was at capacity; you could have gone next door to watch your peers present their findings at the “Residents and Fellows Symposium,” spanning a broad range of both clinical and basic science research.

If dermatopathology is your cup of tea, there were many forums, symposia, and lectures right up your alley. Either way, a very good session for all dermatology residents is the “Basic Self- assessment of Dermatopathology.” Over 2 hours you get to go through 60 slides (2 minutes each) and pick your preferred answer in a multiple-choice format. The discussion session the next morning could be either reassuring or maybe a bit of a wake-up call! For those dermatopathology pros, there is the “Advanced Self-assessment of Dermatopathology” too. Of course, if you are ready for that course, you probably were also excited for the dermatopathology bowl, conducted yearly at the Dermpath Diagnostics booth on the exhibition floor. Compete head-to-head against other programs around the country and make the diagnosis!

Every year, the plenary session is a signature series of lectures. It is a real privilege to hear from the leadership of the AAD about the most pressing issues in our specialty along with a spotlight guest lecture.

This year’s meeting also saw a change in the late-breaking research symposium with a new name, “The Latest in Dermatology Research,” now with a 2-day format. Who does not want to be on the cutting edge of dermatology?

Lastly, if you are not too comfortable with that little polarized light doohickey in your pocket, numerous sessions focusing on dermoscopy were available from “Basic Dermoscopy” to “Advanced Dermoscopy” and specialized sessions on topics such as “Hair and Scalp Dermoscopy.”

Of course, the AAD would not be the AAD without some fun, so make sure to hit up the resident’s reception to see old friends, fellow interns, people from the interview trail, and “that” guy or girl who everyone remembers (for good or bad). If you signed up early enough, perhaps you got one of the complimentary resident spots at the Women’s Dermatologic Society luncheon, which is a great event with interesting talks and great company; you do not have to be a woman to go!

I hope you enjoyed the AAD this year; are you excited yet for San Francisco next year?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.